Show Allowed Domain

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the required token permission ('Read all data') and the delegated-permission scope behavior, which an agent needs to know before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the multi-line permission block with markdown headers is boilerplate-heavy, and the trailing 'Read-only account operation.' merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally say what 'details' are returned for a domain (e.g., name, verification state), but it does not. Auth and read-only semantics are well covered, leaving the return shape as the main gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'domain' and the 'account' credential selector. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Returns the details') and resource ('an allowed domain'), which clearly separates it from the sibling mutations create_allowed_domain and delete_allowed_domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_allowed_domains, leaving the singular-vs-collection distinction to be inferred from the wording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_allowed_domains or the create/delete siblings, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the permission block. The agent must infer that this fetches one domain by name while the sibling lists many.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.